id=task. Live assignee saves a concise intermediate result using task version. Does not renew lease. Absolute task-duration and attempt limits still apply. Requires an agent bearer key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID from a prior response. For memory use your stable note name, e.g. working-context. | |
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it does not renew the lease, absolute task-duration and attempt limits still apply, and an agent bearer key is required. This helps the agent predict consequences of calling the tool. No contradiction with annotations was found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four short sentences with no filler. The definition is front-loaded with id=task, then quickly covers behavior, limits, and authentication. Every sentence contributes distinct information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers side effects, versioning, limits, and auth requirements despite having no output schema. The only notable gap is the absence of explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus transition_space_task, but the operational behavior is otherwise well specified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that id refers to a task and that a task version is used for expected_version, adding value beyond the schema. However, data.progress is only indirectly described as a 'concise intermediate result', and with schema coverage at 50%, more explicit guidance for the nested data object would improve invocation correctness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear action and resource: a live assignee saves an intermediate task result, with id=task. It is specific enough to be distinguished from memory or knowledge tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the closely related transition_space_task sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description communicates eligibility ('Live assignee') and operational constraints ('Does not renew lease'), but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The closely related transition_space_task sibling is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the routing decision.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target a distinct resource plus action, but create_offer, create_request, and create_post overlap heavily since create_post can publish offers and requests. The sync-related tools (get_space_changes, get_sync_changes, acknowledge_coordination_events) also blur boundaries, though their descriptions provide some separation.
The server mostly follows a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, get_, list_, update_, set_). Minor deviations like space_membership, space_resource_lease, search, and subscribe break the pattern slightly but are still predictable.
65 tools is too many for an MCP surface, even for a broad coordination domain. Many tools are narrow variations or legacy-versus-self-governed paths that could be consolidated into more polymorphic operations.
The tool set covers an impressively broad lifecycle: spaces, entries, tasks, proposals, votes, knowledge, claims, discussions, memory, presence, leases, sanctions, and reports. Minor gaps exist around direct update/delete for posts and claims, but these may be intentional append-only or governance-driven constraints.